The need for public campaign financing
Suffolk Executive Steve Levy during his run for governor in June 2010 Credit: Howard Schnapp
The latest revelation about Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy's fundraising says as much about the unseemly game that all our politicians play as it does about the aggressive style of this one embattled player. It offers compelling evidence of the urgent need for campaign finance reform and more transparent disclosure, which this page has advocated repeatedly over the years.
A Newsday investigation shows that Levy's campaign fund reaped $924,746 from contractors, their employees and unions connected to the construction of a new county jail in Yaphank. The contributions came to 21 percent of the $4.3-million campaign war chest that Levy has agreed to turn over to Suffolk District Attorney Thomas Spota, to resolve Spota's investigation of Levy. He has also agreed not to run for re-election. And the Suffolk Republican Party is returning to Spota $100,000 that Levy gave the party two weeks before he stepped aside.
It's breathtakingly ironic that Levy, a vigorous proponent of campaign finance reform, has worked the squalid existing system so aggressively. His attitude -- as long as the game is the way it is, he won't disarm unilaterally -- is glib and unsatisfying. But it isn't unique. Many politicians of all political persuasions use it.
What to do? One answer is greater transparency. The candidates do make their campaign contributions public. But the average citizen, without the time and tenacity of journalists or campaign reform advocates, would find those filings unrevealing. Those numbers don't show clearly the connection between the contributions and the business that contributors do with the candidates they support.
Quicker, more frequent filings before elections might help. Another approach to shining brighter light on the pay-for-play campaign culture is greater disclosure by donors or candidates of business relationships between them. But disclosure alone is not enough. Taxpayer-paid financing of campaigns is needed to produce what some advocates call "voter-owned elections."
The benefits: It makes running for office possible for those of modest means or unwilling to spend endless hours chasing large donations, levels the playing field for parties, and makes those who take part answerable only to citizens, not to special interests willing to write big checks.
An aspect of one type of public financing is under challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court. In Arizona, there's a trigger mechanism that increases taxpayer-funded financing when the opposing candidate, who is not using public funding, ratchets up spending. But that doesn't happen all that often. In fact, in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut, most candidates have opted for public financing.
The court challenge must not scare New York away from public campaign financing. In fact, the court's decision will probably make clearer what will and won't meet constitutional muster. Fortunately, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has made this a key item in his reform agenda, and we urge him to offer his own bill soon. And now that Levy is out of this fall's county executive race, other candidates should draw a lesson from this whole episode: Think carefully about the potential appearance of conflict in every dollar you raise.
